And that is sad. Even sadder than my initial statement,
copied below from my last blogpost. Following it, is the response from an anonymous
reader in the know about all things Google.
"After all, even giants like Google once
enthusiastically targeting the global AEC industry (buying, then further
developing Sketchup) have given up on it as something far too IT-immature and
ruled by anti-innovation bigots to be worth spending efforts on."
“The way you are summarizing it here is not quite correct. Google never targeted the global AEC industry. SketchUp was initially designed for designers to help visualizing their ideas by a small company called @last. Google bought it because SketchUp's user interface is very intuitive. Even amateurs were able to pick it up in no time. That is what Google was after: they needed amateurs to contribute 3D models to one of their major projects at that time: Google Earth.
As technology has improved over the years, Google is now able to generate it's 3D models via 3D image capturing, which made SketchUp obsolete for them. That is why they sold it on to Trimble.
Sketchup Pro was more of a side business for Google to maintain it's already established professional user base they inherited from @last.
But claiming that Google once "enthusiastically targeting the global AEC industry" is not right.”
“The way you are summarizing it here is not quite correct. Google never targeted the global AEC industry. SketchUp was initially designed for designers to help visualizing their ideas by a small company called @last. Google bought it because SketchUp's user interface is very intuitive. Even amateurs were able to pick it up in no time. That is what Google was after: they needed amateurs to contribute 3D models to one of their major projects at that time: Google Earth.
As technology has improved over the years, Google is now able to generate it's 3D models via 3D image capturing, which made SketchUp obsolete for them. That is why they sold it on to Trimble.
Sketchup Pro was more of a side business for Google to maintain it's already established professional user base they inherited from @last.
But claiming that Google once "enthusiastically targeting the global AEC industry" is not right.”
So, let’s accept that I was not correct in claiming that
Google had lost interest in (what is one of the biggest of industries in the
world) but that they never actually targeted it in any meaningful way. What
does that say about Google and what about the industry?
Is it a proof that Google strategist actually saw through
all of the fluff that Global BIM really was and could tell from the outset that
it was never going to work and as such not worth the trouble embracing it, keeping
up with it, integrating with it?
Or was it the industry? So entrenched in its own
importance and commitment to the sophistication of its chosen digital future
that Google did not even made it to the trusting circles of possible global BIM
enablers, of the likes of Autodesk, Trimble and the others?
Not in my court to answer the questions any way – am too
small, insignificant, too much on the fringes.
I do wonder though the ‘why’s’ still, maybe no longer in
a naïve, ‘lost opportunities to do something great’ ways but in more along the
lines of ‘surely there is a hell of a lot of potential in that Google treasure
box to rattle this stuffy industry out of its smugness’!
A cursory Google search brings up an article that suggest
there could be:
“Secret Google Project Could Transform Construction
Industry
According to Globes, a report from Genie's development team, addressed
to Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, describes the invention as a cloud-based collaboration platform with "planning
applications to help architects and engineers in the design process, especially
for skyscrapers and large buildings. The platform includes planning tools of
expert architects and engineers and advance analytics and simulation tools."
The report also emphasized Genie's potential to transform
the conservative construction industry, one of the most profitable and the most
wasteful, by making it more efficient and environmentally friendly at the level
of design, construction, and maintenance. The report suggests the invention
could save 30-50% in construction costs and 30-50% of the time spent between
planning and market; moreover, it could generate $120 billion a year.”
But then, I see the article was written in 2013 – three years
on and still not much of an impact from it….Had it really got off the ground, even
I would have got a whiff of it by now…